The embedded SDMās are just really conveniences and an inexpensive alternative to offline sample-rate conversionā¦ If we want to be honest about our ideals regarding the āmagicalā experience in high-resolution playback, uncompromising offline sample-rate conversion is the way to go.
I use TRAX to extract .dsf files from my SACD .iso rips and DSD Master to decimate .dsf files to DXD 24/352.8 AIFF so I can apply HRTF DSP before modulating these to DSD128.
I could convert the .dsf files to high sample-rate PCM, using SoX (extended version) but I donāt because it doesnāt do a better job than DSD Master and DSD Master is simpler to useā¦
@mhsmit
Here is the problem with subjective reviewsā¦ they cannot be corroborated:
I hope your are up-sampling PCM files using āPower of Twoā to produce the logically correct sample-rates of 24/174.4kHz and 24/192kHzā¦
Itās too bad that you cannot modulate PCM files to DSD128 or DSD256, we really have nothing in common other than the rationale for up-samplingā¦ Iāve been through the gamut of up-samplingā¦ I am very appreciative of Damien providing the algorithms for modulation of PCM files to 1-bit DSDā¦ You might like to try modulating your PCM files to 2.8MHz DSD64 using DoP 1.0 (the highest 1-bit sample-rate the DAC 3 supports) and see how that compares to your 176.4kHz and 192kHz playback. It is limited to 2.8MHz because DSD is only supported by DoP (DSD over PCM) in DAC 3 and only supports the DoP 1.0 PCM carrier sample-rate of 24/176.4kHz.
Damien of course does excellent work, but no, I donāt believe he can take credit for the DoP standard(s)/protocol. He was an early supporter of the standard. See the linked page, where the developers of the protocol/standard are shown under āRevision History,ā and those in the industry who supported it are shown under āIndustry Support:ā
I havenāt myself, no. Itās similar in philosophy to Rob Wattsā designs for Chord: Extremely long (half a million to a million taps) filters. These filters will be very good at stopping any aliasing or imaging, at the cost of greater ringing (the audibility of this ringing, as Iāve noted previously, is often disputed).
Filter length is another parameter for people to experiment with. My only caution wouldnāt be to those who like longer filters like yourself, but the other extreme - donāt make the filter too short. It will hardly ring at all, but a too-short filter has a very good chance of allowing aliasing and imaging, and thus harmonic and intermodulation distortion.
The āaudibility of this ringingā is the dispute that must be quantified by some form of relatively unbiased audition. Especially when we get into the spectrum of a Nyquist Fc at sample-rates above 352.8kHz and beyond, into the 1-bit DSD MHz sample-rate rangeā¦
I believe the tap-length in the filters employed in AudirvÄna is limited due to playback latency concerns (including available accumulator RAM)ā¦ I agree, that unless augmenting with FIR filters in the DAC architecture it is best to stay away from short tap-length. I personally augment my r8Brain output with the FIR filters in my DAC to fine-tune.
In the context of the DAC 3, we are somewhat restricted in this discussion by the supported sample-ratesā¦ Another reason that this discussion surrounding SoX optimizations is subjectively moot for a lot of AudirvÄna users and the aesthetic observations regarding tone, timbre, dynamics and spatiality, detail and focus are intrinsic to those limitations, in concert with these observations being assessed and interpreted in that subjective playback scenario/environment, which cannot be replicated, in order to find a common lexicon of interpretation from which to agree or disagree with, in our own playback scenario/environment.
I mean our hobby is all about subjective as it gets. The pleasure an individuum gets from audio playback is similar to the pleasure from wine tasting. How would one quantify this pleasure? This would be possible only in a statistical environment and even then it is of no use for the individuum. But the subjective feedback of the members of a forum is helpful to get the bigger picture.
I absolutely dislike these subjectivism vs objectivism discussions.
I like providing measurements and graphs for people who may find that information useful, but as you can tell from the recent discussions Iāve been part of, (1) when talking about what I personally like, I always qualify it by saying itās my own subjective preference, and (2) Iāll never tell anyone else what they should like.
You may have read in a related response in one of the other posts, that I state that the DAC 3 is well designed for the digital-audio 44.1k, 88.2k, 96.k, 176.4k and 192kHz production environment flow it is targeted to supportā¦
I understand the function of Diracā¦ however itās analysis and correction is based on the frequency spectrum produced from the transducers that are excited by the harmonic energy delivered to themā¦ So any changes in the source harmonic spectrum energy will have direct relationship with the presumed energy it was previously set to operate upon.
Rob Watts has quite an objective opinion of WTAā¦ its his babyā¦
This is the obvious nature of the hobby and the business of productionā¦ However, if you cannot taste a unique wine, how can you corroborate the subjective assertions about the character? Assertions posed as codification, must be questioned.
From a previous response to another postā¦
"We can enjoy music emanating from the TV speakersā¦ We are experiencing much more than thatā¦ The esoterica of digital high-resolution playback system design, starts at the artistic decisions made by the artist(s) the recording engineer(s), the producer(s) and finally the mastering engineer(s). The object is how to transparently translate that artistic energy imbued in the encoded bits lifted from the storage media, through to the transducers propagating soundwaves into the air of our experienceā¦ Ultimately, that journey is intrinsically tied to the perceptual-biases of our subjectivity. "
The solution is found in the rationale for posing subjective observation as codification. We can only draw inferences if we have some reference of a common lexicon of experienceā¦ Anything can be asserted and left to cognitive bias for interpretation. Without a common lexicon of experience, there is no way in this context, to determine the tangible value of expressed bias and honestly interpret them in a direct relationship. So, the codification posed as authority is the element that must be tempered. We can all understand an expression like āThe results of this process sounded great from my experience here on my systemā however posing values intrinsic to that unique personal experience as codifications cannot be presumed to be relevant to oneās own system experience.
Exactly so. And even language can be quite inadequate to make one personās system and experience relevant to anotherās, though over time we can get a sense for othersā tastes and experiences that may correspond to our own.
But that, and providing assistance to those who need it, is not the only value of a forum like this. There is also the simple friendly pleasure of chatting about our shared hobby, which I enjoy very much.
I happen to be fortunate enough to have my TEAC UD-501 DAC performance objectively assessed by a commonly available resource blogger Archimago, whom I believe many audiophiles respect and has been referred to in the context of this very post.
The DAC that I employ is exposed through the objective assessment of the analysis linked belowā¦ It is laid-out for all to see and interpret the information providedā¦ There is now an element of a ācommon lexicon of experienceā. That lexicon is intrinsically tied to the veracity of the graphical information that a majority of well healed audiophiles here will understand (Another element of a common lexicon of experience).
However, I will never post an assertion that my r8Brain settings will codify a magical experience, even for those that have the common experience of a TEAC UD-501 implemented in their individual playback scenario/experienceā¦ I can espouse on my perceived experiences in the context of my own playback scenario/experience, but not much else is contextually relevant, as my system architecture has been evolved to optimize the real-world performance of the UD-501 and its synergistic relationship to that amalgamation of components and tweaks through a continuous process of subjective interpretation as augmentative technical elements are implemented. These decisions being a product my experiential and technical acumen and the biases of my subjectivity.
So, here is the Archimagoās evaluation of the UD-501 DAC performance and attributes.
Referring to this review may I ask you the following questions:
1.) Would you rate the subjective assessment of Archimago higher than the subjective assessment of any member on this forum here?
2.) Would the objective measurements of this device be able to translate this measurements into how this device performs as musical translator from digital to analog?
For example would analyzing the acidity, residual sugar and maybe other parameters of a certain wine to able to translate into how this wine tastes and how it compares to wines with similar measurements?
If that member implemented a TEAC UD-501 in their playback scenario, I would not have any direct relationship with their perceptions, the only valid information would be that they are happy with their implementation or not happy with the implementation.
Based on my experiential insights and technical acumen, the measurements augment the evaluation of rhetorical potentialsā¦ Ultimately, the subjective direct experience is the arbiter of aesthetic appreciation.
